Jeg blir så oppgitt på at de troende tror de har monopol på moral, etikk og rett og galt

[Anonym bruker]

10 timer siden, tante grusom master of law skrev:

Jadu, jeg leser mye på nett, er i mange forum og tråder. Mye skrullete kristenfolk der ute. 

For hver tullete kristne, er det 10 tullete ateister.

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

[prekæs]

1 minutt siden, tante grusom master of law skrev:

Dette er jo en total misforståelse av det jeg ville frem til.

Du ville fram til at kristne mennesker mener at de har monopol på moral og etikk. Jeg kjenner meg ikke igjen. Det var nå helst eldgamle fantasibøker jeg reagerte på. Bøker som betyr mye for verdens religiøse befolkning og mener derfor at et humant menneskesyn respekterer dette og ikke harselerer rundt det. 

Husker haugevis av slike tråder her inne som harselerer med disse bøkene, men husker ikke en eneste en som rakker ned på mennesker med et ateistisk livssyn. Mulig de finnes, men jeg har ikke sett.

[Anonym bruker]

Akkurat nå, prekæs skrev:

Du ville fram til at kristne mennesker mener at de har monopol på moral og etikk. Jeg kjenner meg ikke igjen. Det var nå helst eldgamle fantasibøker jeg reagerte på. Bøker som betyr mye for verdens religiøse befolkning og mener derfor at et humant menneskesyn respekterer dette og ikke harselerer rundt det. 

Husker haugevis av slike tråder her inne som harselerer med disse bøkene, men husker ikke en eneste en som rakker ned på mennesker med et ateistisk livssyn. Mulig de finnes, men jeg har ikke sett.

Det de tror er at noen har sagt at de ikke evner å skille mellom rett og galt, bare fordiatte, men det de ikke forstår er at det som ligger bak er at de tror på ingenting. Og hvis man tror på ingenting, er det - nettopp - ingenting som kan fortelle deg hva som er rett og galt. Det er ingen skrevne retningslinjer annet enn føleri og hva man vil gjøre der og da, eventuelt hva man ikke vil gjøre for å unngå å havne i klammeri med loven. Som forøvrig er bygget på kristendom her i Norge.

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det de tror er at noen har sagt at de ikke evner å skille mellom rett og galt, bare fordiatte, men det de ikke forstår er at det som ligger bak er at de tror på ingenting. Og hvis man tror på ingenting, er det - nettopp - ingenting som kan fortelle deg hva som er rett og galt. Det er ingen skrevne retningslinjer annet enn føleri og hva man vil gjøre der og da, eventuelt hva man ikke vil gjøre for å unngå å havne i klammeri med loven. Som forøvrig er bygget på kristendom her i Norge.

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

Jeg er ikke ateist, men det der er tull!

Selvfølgelig kan man skille rett fra galt selvom man ikke er kristen! For det første er mye av det kulturelt betinget - vi har andre oppfatninger av ting her enn i mange andre såkalte kristne land. Det samme var tilfellet da de kristne vikinger regjerte her. Veldig mye av hva vi oppfatter som rett og galt bygger på kulturelle holdninger. Det var ikke lov å stjele før kirken kom til Norden heller, for nå å ta et veldig tydelig eksempel. 

I stedet for å la en gud - som forøvrig tolkes ganske forskjellig rundt om - diktere oppførselen er spørsmålet "Skader min handling andre mennesker?" Hvis ja er den gal. Man kan fint skille rett og galt selvom man ikke er kristen/religiøs. 

Anonymkode: 21d9e...feb

[tante grusom master of law]

4 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det de tror er at noen har sagt at de ikke evner å skille mellom rett og galt, bare fordiatte, men det de ikke forstår er at det som ligger bak er at de tror på ingenting. Og hvis man tror på ingenting, er det - nettopp - ingenting som kan fortelle deg hva som er rett og galt. Det er ingen skrevne retningslinjer annet enn føleri og hva man vil gjøre der og da, eventuelt hva man ikke vil gjøre for å unngå å havne i klammeri med loven. Som forøvrig er bygget på kristendom her i Norge.

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

Nei mennesket trenger ingen skrevne retningslinjer for å skille mellom rett og galt, de fleste oppegående friske mennesker klarer dette av seg selv. Og hva tror du kristendom er bygget på? Mest sannsynlig en omforent følelse av hva som er rett og galt uten noe faktisk innspill fra noen gud. 

[Anonym bruker]

Is Secular Humanism a Religion?
 

It is now a rather old story: secular humanism is a religion. A court case in 1995 examined the issue and concluded, rightly, that science, in the form of the theory of evolution, is not a religion. In 2006, the BBC aired a program called The Trouble with Atheism which argued that atheists are religious and made the point via a series of interviews with prominent atheists who claimed their beliefs were “proved” by science. The presenter, Rod Liddle, concluded that Darwinism is a religion. That is wrong, as 18th century philosopher David Hume showed many years ago. Science consists of facts, but facts alone do not motivate. Without motive, a fact points to no action. Liddle was half-right: both religion and secular humanism provide motives, explicit in one case, but covert in the other.

What is religion? All religions have three elements, although the relative emphasis differs from one religion to another—Buddhists are light on the supernatural, for example. 

The first is the belief in invisible or hidden beings, worlds and processes—like God, heaven, miracles, reincarnation, and the soul. All these are unverifiable, or unseen and unseeable, except by mystics under special and generally unrepeatable conditions. Since absence of evidence is not, logically, evidence of absence, these features of religion are neither true nor false, but simply unprovable. They have no implications for action, hence no bearing on legal matters.

The second element are claims about the real world: every religion, especially in its primordial version, makes claims that are essentially scientific—assertions of fact that are potentially verifiable. These claims are of two kinds. The first we might call timeless: e.g., claims about physical properties—the four elementary humors, for example, the Hindu turtle that supports the world, properties of foods, the doctrine of literal transubstantiation. The second are claims about history: Noah’s flood, the age of the earth, the resurrection—all “myths of origin.” Some of these claims are unverifiable; as for the rest, there is now a consensus that science usually wins—in law and elsewhere. In any case, few of these claims have any bearing on action.

The third property of a religion are its rules for action—prohibitions and requirements—its morality. All religions have a code, a set of moral and behavioral prescriptions, matters of belief —usually, but not necessarily—said to flow from God, that provide guides to action in a wide range of situations. The 10 Commandments, the principles of Sharia, the Five Precepts of Buddhism, etc. 

Secular humanism lacks any reference to the supernatural and defers matters of fact to science. But it is as rich in moral rules, in dogma, as any religion. Its rules come not from God but from texts like Mill’s On Liberty, and the works of philosophers like Peter Singer, Dan Dennett and Bertrand Russell, psychologists B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, public intellectuals like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and “humanist chaplains” everywhere. 

In terms of moral rules, secular humanism is indistinguishable from a religion.

It has escaped the kind of attacks directed at Christianity and other up-front religions for two reasons: its name implies that it is not religious, and its principles cannot be tracked down to a canonical text. They exist but are not formally defined by any “holy book.”

But it is only the morality of a religion, not its supernatural or historical beliefs, that has any implications for action, for politics and law. Secular humanism makes moral claims as strong as any other faith. It is therefore as much a religion as any other. But because it is not seen as religious, the beliefs of secular humanists increasingly influence U.S. law.

The covert nature of these principles is a disadvantage in some ways, but a great advantage in the political/legal context. Because secular-humanist morals cannot be easily identified, they cannot be easily attacked. A secular judgeship candidate can claim to be unbiased, not because she has no religious principles, but because her principles cannot easily be seen. Yet belief in the innocence of abortion or the value of homosexuality, the “normality” of the LGBTQ+ community, or the essential sameness of men and women (scientifically false, but having many legal implications), may be no less passionate, no less based on faith—no less unprovable—than the opposite beliefs of many frankly religious people. 

Here are three examples of how secular morals have affected law. As the marriage rate has declined and rate of cohabitation has increased—as marriage itself seemed to become less important—the legalization of same-sex marriage became a hot topic. It was once a minority position among American citizens and their elected representatives, but dwindling opposition led to swift legalization of gay marriage in 2015.

 

This bouleversement actually changed the meaning of the word marriage and introduced unnecessary uncertainty into both social and sexual intercourse (“Hi Fred, is your wife here? What is her name?” Fred: “Sebastian…”). Why did this happen, given the declining importance of marriage itself, the availability of civil-partnership contracts, and the historical opposition of all major religions? The answer lies in a secular-humanist commandment as powerful as any of the familiar 10: the omnipotence of personal passions. The different status and social value of same-and different-sex liaisons, for example, is dwarfed by this personal imperative.

Secular humanists also have blasphemy rules. Dressing in blackface as a teenager or actually saying the N-word, even in an educational context, can lead to severe consequences. Virginia Governor Northam may yet have to resign over a decades-old blackface incident; but Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal survived what many would consider a more serious sin: exaggerating his military experience.Young Northam committed racist blasphemy, while Blumenthal merely lied.

And finally, there is the 40-foot Bladensburg (Md.) cross, erected in 1925 with private money but on public land, to commemorate soldiers who died in World War I. Fred Edwords, a former official of the American Humanist Association, is one of the plaintiffs seeking to get the cross declared illegal. “This cross sends a message of Christian favoritism and exclusion of all others,” says Mr. Edwords. Not that anyone else is excluded from erecting their own monument. It seems to be the faith of a competitor that Fred objects to. Evidently toleration is not one of the secular humanist commandments, but Christianity as anathema is.

Religiously affiliated candidates for high office are often quizzed about their religious beliefs. This is both unfair and largely irrelevant. Whether a candidate believes in transubstantiation or the virgin birth has no bearing at all on how he or she will judge the rights of litigants. Beliefs about religious stories and transcendental matters do not guide action

What matters are the person’s moral beliefs, whatever their source; and their willingness to disregard them if they conflict with the constitution. Secular candidates have just as many “unprovable beliefs” as religious candidates. The only difference is that secular morality is not written down in a single identifiable source. It is not easily accessible.

Candidates, both religious and non-religious, should all be subject to the same range of questions—questions not about their religion but about what might be called their “action imperatives.” What should be prohibited? What should be encouraged? In short, what are their “goods” and “bads” and how would they act if their beliefs are in conflict with settled law? 

The point is to understand the moral beliefs of the candidate and how he or she is prepared to reconcile them with the law, not his or her adherence to a recognized faith. As it is, many passionate, “religious” beliefs of secular candidates go undetected and unquestioned. Thus, they become law by stealth.

John Staddon is James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Professor of Biology, Emeritus, at Duke University

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

[Anonym bruker]

4. Atheism and ethics/morality

Here is a video debate between an atheist and the author of this article: Morality: natural or supernatural?

Technically, ethics refers to what should be and morals to what is or; prescriptionand description. Atheists differ on the issue of ethics and morality; some claim that there are absolutes and some do not. As to the question of whether atheists can make absolute moral statements, this is tantamount to the first year theology student who, when asked, “Do you believe in infant baptism?” responded, “Sure I do; I’ve seen it done.” Yes, atheists can make any statements about anything at all—the question is: are the statements viable?

Atheists make epistemic statements about morality but do not provide an ontological premise for ethics.²⁶ That is to say that they can muse upon issues of morality and come to any conclusion that they please. However, these turn out to be arbitrary personal preferences that are expressed as dogmatic assertions.

Some atheists do make attempts at providing an ontological basis for ethics. These range quite widely—from considering the behavior of apes to Game Theory.

In the first case, it is, of course, being presupposed that we share a common evolutionary lineage with apes and that their behavior tells us something about ours. Even when such observations successfully correlate their behaviors to ours, it is merely a description. Moreover, from such correlations it is inferred that morality is part of our overall evolution. This amounts to intuition or urges which we are free to act upon or disregard.

In the second case investigators concoct games that they claim dissect human behavior. With regards to Game Theory, Benjamin Wiker notes,

“By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions … The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.”²⁷

Another supposed basis for ethics is that “an action is unethical/immoral if it causes harm to others.” Thus, it is the nature of the consequence caused by the action that determines whether an action is ethical or unethical. The fundamental problem with this definition of ethical behavior is that an action ceases to be unethical if no adverse consequences are experienced. As such, nothing is inherently wrong; an action is only wrong if it causes harm to another.

Consider the example of adulterous behavior: under the “do no harm” definition of ethical behavior, adultery is wrong because it harms the other party in the marriage (i.e., the faithful spouse). This harm can include mental anguish, the spread of disease to the faithful party and the loss of affection from the adulterous party. An additional adverse consequence includes unwanted pregnancies outside of the marriage. However, what if an adulterous act did not lead to those outcomes (e.g., a husband, who has had a vasectomy, occasionally has sexual relations with women free from sexually transmitted diseases while on trips to foreign cities)? In such an instance would adultery cease being unethical? Would the husband’s behavior turn from ethically neutral to unethical only if he were to confess his adultery to his wife, or if he was otherwise caught, thus causing her mental anguish?

It seems that there is something else behind, or beyond, the consideration of causing harm. In fact, there must be something else. Why must there be something else? Because it is precisely by knowing that which causes others harm that I may come to know how to push their buttons, how to manipulate them, how to take advantage of them, how to suppress them, etc. I may find that I can assist my survival by causing such harm to others and so, on this view, their harm is for my benefit. There must be something beyond that which makes causing harm itself unethical.

An ethical code based on God is determined by God’s communication to man of what is ethical and unethical. This is because God’s ethical code to us is derived from God’s very triune, relational, ethical nature. This nature is ethical and relational as it is unified by virtue of God consisting of one in being and yet, diverse as it is experienced and enjoyed amongst the three persons of the Trinity. Under such an ethical code, and in contrast to any Godless moral code, a given action such as adultery is still wrong even in absence of adverse consequences to another party. Thus, under a God-authored ethical code some actions are inherently wrong.

Furthermore, the atheist has no basis for saying that it is wrong to harm others anyway. Why should it be wrong to harm others? This supposed basis for ethics fails at this very point.

Let us consider some atheist’s statements about morality:

Dan Barker, co-founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, claims that, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” and refers to Jesus as “a moral monster”.²⁸ He includes the following within his understanding of Darwinian goodness,

“I support a woman’s right to choose an abortion. I think it’s a good thing. I think abortion is actually a good thing for society. If I can borrow a religious word, a word that my mother-in-law uses, I think abortion is a blessing for many, many, many women.”²⁹

This appears to be in keeping with his general view on human worth, value and dignity, “a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has—what? What? Would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?”³⁰

Dan Barker has also stated, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares” and he bases his humanistic morality upon his reasoning whether, it will ultimately matter what happens to us or a vegetable: “ … what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”³¹

He does not seem to consider that the fact that the concept which holds that “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares … we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care”, quite logically and easily, leads to inhumane immorality.

Dan Barker has further stated:

“Atheism and Freethought and true humanistic morality are, are so much more clear, so much more useful, so much more reasonable so, you know, without all the negative baggage of theology and judgment and hell and, and you know, and the supernatural. My goodness, you know, I used to believe in the supernatural and, and now to realize I don’t have to try to prop up this phony supernatural system in, in reality it’s very freeing, very relaxing. I’m not afraid of being judged and going to hell anymore. I’m responsible for my own actions, the consequences are natural and I live with them and, and it actually turns out that most atheists and agnostics are more accountable; they are more moral they, they have more responsibility in their lives because they realize that it, it’s what matters is this world not an imaginary supernatural world … true humanistic morality which is much superior to Christian morality.”³²

Dan Barker has also offered motivating factors for moral actions that are quite common within atheist thought—these are self-serving motivations, whereby one should be good not for goodness’ sake but in order to benefit oneself, for example,

“if you wish to be … a healthy person” (meaning mentally healthy). 
“if you wish to be labeled ‘ethical’ by other people.” 
“if you wish to be viewed by your society as ‘a good person’.” 
“if that’s something you wish.”³³

Likewise, examples include the following statement by The Humanist Society of Scotland:

“It’s best to be honest because … I’m happier and feel better about myself if I’m honest.”³⁴ [emphasis and ellipses in original]

However, why being honest should make us happy remains a mystery.

Reginald Finley (aka The Infidel Guy) and Matthew Davis put forth the following reason for moral behavior:

“if one does horrible things to people, that person will eventually have horrible things happen to him.”³⁵

This is hip My Name Is Earl³⁶ watered-down karma, but is obviously pseudo-morality based on self-preservation (perhaps aptly Darwinian).

With regards to Dan Barker, let us lastly note that he also argues that rape is not absolutely immoral. His “reasoning” involves a hypothetical scenario in which malevolent aliens from outer space attack Earth.³⁷ He and other atheists have made some very troubling statements about rape. Further examples include Sam Harris:

“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”³⁸

He also believes that rape is not only perfectly natural (contrary to contemporary morality) but that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution,

“there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male. You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.”³⁹

www.expelledthemovie.com Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have trouble finding logical reasons to denounce rape as unacceptable behavior

Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded askance. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

JB: When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

RD: My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.⁴⁰

Professor of the philosophy of science, Michael Ruse, makes similar statements:

“Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than are hands and feet and teeth … Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction.”⁴¹

Apparently, having feet and hands was not predetermined, nor that we have five fingers rather than six, nor that rape is immoral versus it being moral.

Furthermore, two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape was a device for men to perpetuate their genes⁴²—one of the authors tied himself in knots trying to explain why rape was still wrong under his own philosophy.⁴³

Richard Dawkins urges us to rebel against Darwinism with regards to morality, based upon his personal and societal preferences. His premise for prescribing rebellion is that,

“nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”⁴⁴

the atheist really does not have much of a basis for moral decisions, other than the atheist’s own preferences, which ‘should’ go against the Darwinist conception of nature because … well, because it is morally better to do so!

Overall, the atheist really does not have much of a basis for moral decisions, other than the atheist’s own preferences, which “should” go against the Darwinist conception of nature because … well, because it is morally better to do so!

 

https://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

[Anonym bruker]

3 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

4. Atheism and ethics/morality

Here is a video debate between an atheist and the author of this article: Morality: natural or supernatural?

Technically, ethics refers to what should be and morals to what is or; prescriptionand description. Atheists differ on the issue of ethics and morality; some claim that there are absolutes and some do not. As to the question of whether atheists can make absolute moral statements, this is tantamount to the first year theology student who, when asked, “Do you believe in infant baptism?” responded, “Sure I do; I’ve seen it done.” Yes, atheists can make any statements about anything at all—the question is: are the statements viable?

Atheists make epistemic statements about morality but do not provide an ontological premise for ethics.²⁶ That is to say that they can muse upon issues of morality and come to any conclusion that they please. However, these turn out to be arbitrary personal preferences that are expressed as dogmatic assertions.

Some atheists do make attempts at providing an ontological basis for ethics. These range quite widely—from considering the behavior of apes to Game Theory.

In the first case, it is, of course, being presupposed that we share a common evolutionary lineage with apes and that their behavior tells us something about ours. Even when such observations successfully correlate their behaviors to ours, it is merely a description. Moreover, from such correlations it is inferred that morality is part of our overall evolution. This amounts to intuition or urges which we are free to act upon or disregard.

In the second case investigators concoct games that they claim dissect human behavior. With regards to Game Theory, Benjamin Wiker notes,

“By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions … The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.”²⁷

Another supposed basis for ethics is that “an action is unethical/immoral if it causes harm to others.” Thus, it is the nature of the consequence caused by the action that determines whether an action is ethical or unethical. The fundamental problem with this definition of ethical behavior is that an action ceases to be unethical if no adverse consequences are experienced. As such, nothing is inherently wrong; an action is only wrong if it causes harm to another.

Consider the example of adulterous behavior: under the “do no harm” definition of ethical behavior, adultery is wrong because it harms the other party in the marriage (i.e., the faithful spouse). This harm can include mental anguish, the spread of disease to the faithful party and the loss of affection from the adulterous party. An additional adverse consequence includes unwanted pregnancies outside of the marriage. However, what if an adulterous act did not lead to those outcomes (e.g., a husband, who has had a vasectomy, occasionally has sexual relations with women free from sexually transmitted diseases while on trips to foreign cities)? In such an instance would adultery cease being unethical? Would the husband’s behavior turn from ethically neutral to unethical only if he were to confess his adultery to his wife, or if he was otherwise caught, thus causing her mental anguish?

It seems that there is something else behind, or beyond, the consideration of causing harm. In fact, there must be something else. Why must there be something else? Because it is precisely by knowing that which causes others harm that I may come to know how to push their buttons, how to manipulate them, how to take advantage of them, how to suppress them, etc. I may find that I can assist my survival by causing such harm to others and so, on this view, their harm is for my benefit. There must be something beyond that which makes causing harm itself unethical.

An ethical code based on God is determined by God’s communication to man of what is ethical and unethical. This is because God’s ethical code to us is derived from God’s very triune, relational, ethical nature. This nature is ethical and relational as it is unified by virtue of God consisting of one in being and yet, diverse as it is experienced and enjoyed amongst the three persons of the Trinity. Under such an ethical code, and in contrast to any Godless moral code, a given action such as adultery is still wrong even in absence of adverse consequences to another party. Thus, under a God-authored ethical code some actions are inherently wrong.

Furthermore, the atheist has no basis for saying that it is wrong to harm others anyway. Why should it be wrong to harm others? This supposed basis for ethics fails at this very point.

Let us consider some atheist’s statements about morality:

Dan Barker, co-founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, claims that, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” and refers to Jesus as “a moral monster”.²⁸ He includes the following within his understanding of Darwinian goodness,

“I support a woman’s right to choose an abortion. I think it’s a good thing. I think abortion is actually a good thing for society. If I can borrow a religious word, a word that my mother-in-law uses, I think abortion is a blessing for many, many, many women.”²⁹

This appears to be in keeping with his general view on human worth, value and dignity, “a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has—what? What? Would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?”³⁰

Dan Barker has also stated, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares” and he bases his humanistic morality upon his reasoning whether, it will ultimately matter what happens to us or a vegetable: “ … what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”³¹

He does not seem to consider that the fact that the concept which holds that “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares … we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care”, quite logically and easily, leads to inhumane immorality.

Dan Barker has further stated:

“Atheism and Freethought and true humanistic morality are, are so much more clear, so much more useful, so much more reasonable so, you know, without all the negative baggage of theology and judgment and hell and, and you know, and the supernatural. My goodness, you know, I used to believe in the supernatural and, and now to realize I don’t have to try to prop up this phony supernatural system in, in reality it’s very freeing, very relaxing. I’m not afraid of being judged and going to hell anymore. I’m responsible for my own actions, the consequences are natural and I live with them and, and it actually turns out that most atheists and agnostics are more accountable; they are more moral they, they have more responsibility in their lives because they realize that it, it’s what matters is this world not an imaginary supernatural world … true humanistic morality which is much superior to Christian morality.”³²

Dan Barker has also offered motivating factors for moral actions that are quite common within atheist thought—these are self-serving motivations, whereby one should be good not for goodness’ sake but in order to benefit oneself, for example,

“if you wish to be … a healthy person” (meaning mentally healthy). 
“if you wish to be labeled ‘ethical’ by other people.” 
“if you wish to be viewed by your society as ‘a good person’.” 
“if that’s something you wish.”³³

Likewise, examples include the following statement by The Humanist Society of Scotland:

“It’s best to be honest because … I’m happier and feel better about myself if I’m honest.”³⁴ [emphasis and ellipses in original]

However, why being honest should make us happy remains a mystery.

Reginald Finley (aka The Infidel Guy) and Matthew Davis put forth the following reason for moral behavior:

“if one does horrible things to people, that person will eventually have horrible things happen to him.”³⁵

This is hip My Name Is Earl³⁶ watered-down karma, but is obviously pseudo-morality based on self-preservation (perhaps aptly Darwinian).

With regards to Dan Barker, let us lastly note that he also argues that rape is not absolutely immoral. His “reasoning” involves a hypothetical scenario in which malevolent aliens from outer space attack Earth.³⁷ He and other atheists have made some very troubling statements about rape. Further examples include Sam Harris:

“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”³⁸

He also believes that rape is not only perfectly natural (contrary to contemporary morality) but that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution,

“there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male. You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.”³⁹

www.expelledthemovie.com Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have trouble finding logical reasons to denounce rape as unacceptable behavior

Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded askance. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

JB: When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

RD: My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.⁴⁰

Professor of the philosophy of science, Michael Ruse, makes similar statements:

“Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than are hands and feet and teeth … Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction.”⁴¹

Apparently, having feet and hands was not predetermined, nor that we have five fingers rather than six, nor that rape is immoral versus it being moral.

Furthermore, two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape was a device for men to perpetuate their genes⁴²—one of the authors tied himself in knots trying to explain why rape was still wrong under his own philosophy.⁴³

Richard Dawkins urges us to rebel against Darwinism with regards to morality, based upon his personal and societal preferences. His premise for prescribing rebellion is that,

“nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”⁴⁴

the atheist really does not have much of a basis for moral decisions, other than the atheist’s own preferences, which ‘should’ go against the Darwinist conception of nature because … well, because it is morally better to do so!

Overall, the atheist really does not have much of a basis for moral decisions, other than the atheist’s own preferences, which “should” go against the Darwinist conception of nature because … well, because it is morally better to do so!

 

https://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics

Anonymkode: df2d5...4da

Tror du en persons mening om dette betyr at det er riktig? Er denne mannen biased? 

Det er vel akkurat din holdning til dette HI reagerer på. Monopolet på å ha etikk og moral fordi du tror på en gud.

Kristendommen og bibelen har skaffet mange argumenter for både apartheid, slaveri, kjønnsdiskriminering, drap, vold mot kvinner, krig stort sett det meste av djevelskap som mennesker kan finne på. 

Anonymkode: fc26a...5ca

[Anonym bruker]

43 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Tror du en persons mening om dette betyr at det er riktig? Er denne mannen biased? 

Det er vel akkurat din holdning til dette HI reagerer på. Monopolet på å ha etikk og moral fordi du tror på en gud.

Kristendommen og bibelen har skaffet mange argumenter for både apartheid, slaveri, kjønnsdiskriminering, drap, vold mot kvinner, krig stort sett det meste av djevelskap som mennesker kan finne på. 

Anonymkode: fc26a...5ca

Kildehenvisningen er i alle fall priceless🤦🏻‍♀️ Dette er det de skriver om seg selv😂

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

Anonymkode: 52912...7bc

[Anonym bruker]

Det finnes godt og ondt i oss alle, i ulik balanse, men fakta er at de ti mest fredfulle landene i verden også har minst andel troende, samtidig som de ti mest konfliktfylte har høy andel religiøse. 

Ateister har høyere grad av pasifisme, og er sterkere motstandere av dødsstraff og oppdragervold. Dette er gelerelle linjer, og ikke nødvendigvis overførbart til den enkelte troende eller ateist. 

Så kommer det an på hvilken moral man har. Anser man det som moralsk riktig å drepe mennesker med et annet livssyn (eller en annen retning innen samme livssyn) fordi et gammelt skrift er tydet slik, eller anser man alt liv som hellig, eller et sted i mellom? 

Anonymkode: 52912...7bc

[Anonym bruker]

3 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det finnes godt og ondt i oss alle, i ulik balanse, men fakta er at de ti mest fredfulle landene i verden også har minst andel troende, samtidig som de ti mest konfliktfylte har høy andel religiøse. 

Ateister har høyere grad av pasifisme, og er sterkere motstandere av dødsstraff og oppdragervold. Dette er gelerelle linjer, og ikke nødvendigvis overførbart til den enkelte troende eller ateist. 

Så kommer det an på hvilken moral man har. Anser man det som moralsk riktig å drepe mennesker med et annet livssyn (eller en annen retning innen samme livssyn) fordi et gammelt skrift er tydet slik, eller anser man alt liv som hellig, eller et sted i mellom? 

Anonymkode: 52912...7bc

Jeg har ingen forutsettning for å si om det du skriver stemmer, men jeg forutsetter at det er riktig. Det jeg da tenker er at det ikke bør være noe mål i seg selv at det er fredlig og ikke finnes vold. Konflikt og i ytterste konsekvens krig, er en nødvendighet for å utvikle samfunnet. 

Vold, eller trussel om vold, vil være en forutsettning for å få gjennomført nye ideer. Det høres veldig fint ut med et samfunn som er 100% fredelig, men det er det egentlig ikke.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

1 time siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg har ingen forutsettning for å si om det du skriver stemmer, men jeg forutsetter at det er riktig. Det jeg da tenker er at det ikke bør være noe mål i seg selv at det er fredlig og ikke finnes vold. Konflikt og i ytterste konsekvens krig, er en nødvendighet for å utvikle samfunnet. 

Vold, eller trussel om vold, vil være en forutsettning for å få gjennomført nye ideer. Det høres veldig fint ut med et samfunn som er 100% fredelig, men det er det egentlig ikke.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Sånne som deg er farlige! Religion er farlig når man slutter å tenke selv, men er villige til å ty til krig og vold for å påtvinge andre “nye idéer”.

Krig og vold er heller ikke hva Jesus promoterte? Jesus sa at man skal følge lovene i landet man er i, at man skal snu det andre kinnet til o.s.v. Men mange klarer å komme frem til slike gode idéer også uten Jesus (selv om Jesus også sa mye bra).

Du promoterer jo krig, vold og trussel om vold, og sier at fredelige samfunn ikke egentlig er ønskelig og fint. Du er en splitter pine gal ekstremist! 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

[Anonym bruker]

1 time siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg har ingen forutsettning for å si om det du skriver stemmer, men jeg forutsetter at det er riktig. Det jeg da tenker er at det ikke bør være noe mål i seg selv at det er fredlig og ikke finnes vold. Konflikt og i ytterste konsekvens krig, er en nødvendighet for å utvikle samfunnet. 

Vold, eller trussel om vold, vil være en forutsettning for å få gjennomført nye ideer. Det høres veldig fint ut med et samfunn som er 100% fredelig, men det er det egentlig ikke.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Så målet helliger midlet?

Å fysj!

Slik argumentering har ført til drap på millioner! Om du kaller deg selv kristen gir jeg ikke mye for kristen moral! Og hvor ble det av de 10 budene oppi alt dette?

Anonymkode: 21d9e...feb

[Anonym bruker]

4 timer siden, prekæs skrev:

Du ville fram til at kristne mennesker mener at de har monopol på moral og etikk. Jeg kjenner meg ikke igjen. Det var nå helst eldgamle fantasibøker jeg reagerte på. Bøker som betyr mye for verdens religiøse befolkning og mener derfor at et humant menneskesyn respekterer dette og ikke harselerer rundt det. 

Husker haugevis av slike tråder her inne som harselerer med disse bøkene, men husker ikke en eneste en som rakker ned på mennesker med et ateistisk livssyn. Mulig de finnes, men jeg har ikke sett.

Det har vært ganske mye av det her i det siste

Anonymkode: c346d...83d

[Anonym bruker]

24 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Så målet helliger midlet?

Å fysj!

Slik argumentering har ført til drap på millioner! Om du kaller deg selv kristen gir jeg ikke mye for kristen moral! Og hvor ble det av de 10 budene oppi alt dette?

Anonymkode: 21d9e...feb

Ja, jeg mener målet helliger middelet i mange tilfeller. Jeg mener for eksempel det var tiktig å gjøre motstand mot nazistene under WW2 og at det var riktig å bruke vold for å fjerne IS.

I veldig mange tilfeller vil det være konflikt mellom hva som er best for ulike mennesker. Da må man gjøre et valg. Å tro at "alle bare kan være snille mot hverandre og så får alle det bra" er å stikke hodet i sanden. 

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

38 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Sånne som deg er farlige! Religion er farlig når man slutter å tenke selv, men er villige til å ty til krig og vold for å påtvinge andre “nye idéer”.

Krig og vold er heller ikke hva Jesus promoterte? Jesus sa at man skal følge lovene i landet man er i, at man skal snu det andre kinnet til o.s.v. Men mange klarer å komme frem til slike gode idéer også uten Jesus (selv om Jesus også sa mye bra).

Du promoterer jo krig, vold og trussel om vold, og sier at fredelige samfunn ikke egentlig er ønskelig og fint. Du er en splitter pine gal ekstremist! 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

De aller fleste stater har et vepnet forsvar, politi som har rett til å bruke makt og offentlig straff for ikke å følge de gjeldende lovene. Jeg kjenner ikke til noe fungerende samfunn der det ikke blir brukt offentlig vold eller trusler om vold. Gjør du?

Hisker du den franske rvulosjon? Den har hatt enormt mye å si for å få demonrati og rettigheter for folk flest i Europa, men det var en voldelig afære. Mener du det var galt?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

1 time siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

De aller fleste stater har et vepnet forsvar, politi som har rett til å bruke makt og offentlig straff for ikke å følge de gjeldende lovene. Jeg kjenner ikke til noe fungerende samfunn der det ikke blir brukt offentlig vold eller trusler om vold. Gjør du?

Hisker du den franske rvulosjon? Den har hatt enormt mye å si for å få demonrati og rettigheter for folk flest i Europa, men det var en voldelig afære. Mener du det var galt?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Du forvarte at kristne er mer voldelige enn ikke religiøse, med å skrive at det ikke bør være noe mål i seg selv at det er fredlig og ikke finnes vold. Konflikt og i ytterste konsekvens krig, er en nødvendighet for å utvikle samfunnet. 

Politiet og forsvaret bør fungere for å forhindre vold. Politiet bør aldri bruke vold om ikke de selv blir utsatt for vold, det bør ikke hæren heller. Det er forskjell på forsvar og angrep. Dette gjelder hele samfunnet. Om folket blir utsatt for vold fra maktene, kan de ty til vold for å få slutt på volden, men målet er selvfølgelig alltid fred!!

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

[Anonym bruker]

10 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Du forvarte at kristne er mer voldelige enn ikke religiøse, med å skrive at det ikke bør være noe mål i seg selv at det er fredlig og ikke finnes vold. Konflikt og i ytterste konsekvens krig, er en nødvendighet for å utvikle samfunnet. 

Politiet og forsvaret bør fungere for å forhindre vold. Politiet bør aldri bruke vold om ikke de selv blir utsatt for vold, det bør ikke hæren heller. Det er forskjell på forsvar og angrep. Dette gjelder hele samfunnet. Om folket blir utsatt for vold fra maktene, kan de ty til vold for å få slutt på volden, men målet er selvfølgelig alltid fred!!

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

Nei, jeg forsvarte ikke at kristne er mer voldlige, jeg tror heller ikke de er det, men jeg godtok forutsettningen i innlegget for diskusjonen.

Mener du virklig at politiet ikke bør bruke vold om de ikke blir utsatt for det selv. Jeg mener de bør kunne bruke nødvendig vold, inklusive drap, for å beskytte andre. Det regner jeg med at du gjør også.

Jeg mener ikke at fred bestandig bør være hovedmålet. Noen ganger er voldsbruk nødvendig.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

17 timer siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Nei, jeg forsvarte ikke at kristne er mer voldlige, jeg tror heller ikke de er det, men jeg godtok forutsettningen i innlegget for diskusjonen.

Mener du virklig at politiet ikke bør bruke vold om de ikke blir utsatt for det selv. Jeg mener de bør kunne bruke nødvendig vold, inklusive drap, for å beskytte andre. Det regner jeg med at du gjør også.

Jeg mener ikke at fred bestandig bør være hovedmålet. Noen ganger er voldsbruk nødvendig.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Du mener krig er en nødvendighet for utvikling av samfunnet, og at fred ikke alltid er et hovedmål. 

I rest my case.

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Du mener krig er en nødvendighet for utvikling av samfunnet, og at fred ikke alltid er et hovedmål. 

I rest my case.

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

Ja, det mener jeg. Jeg tolker sarkasmen din dithenn at du ikke har argumenter, men bare ikke vil innrømme at du vet jeg har rett.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

1 minutt siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Ja, det mener jeg. Jeg tolker sarkasmen din dithenn at du ikke har argumenter, men bare ikke vil innrømme at du vet jeg har rett.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Jeg tolker det som at du aldri har opplevd krig, du som tar så lett på at det å drepe uskyldige voksne og barn for “utvikling av samfunnet”. 

Men det er nok typisk religiøse å være mer kompromissløse.

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

[Anonym bruker]

13 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg tolker det som at du aldri har opplevd krig, du som tar så lett på at det å drepe uskyldige voksne og barn for “utvikling av samfunnet”. 

Men det er nok typisk religiøse å være mer kompromissløse.

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

Jeg tar ikke lett på det, men jeg synes for eksempel det jan være riktig med en militær aksjon der man forventer at 20 mennesker blir drept hvis det kan føre til at 2000 ikke sulter ihjel. Hvis problemet kan løses uten voldsbruk mener jeg det som regel er bedre, men det er ikke bestandig det går.

 

Hva er mest kompromissløst, å nekte for all vold, uansett hva det fører til, eller å godta at vold kan være nødvendig noen ganger?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

2 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Jeg tar ikke lett på det, men jeg synes for eksempel det jan være riktig med en militær aksjon der man forventer at 20 mennesker blir drept hvis det kan føre til at 2000 ikke sulter ihjel. Hvis problemet kan løses uten voldsbruk mener jeg det som regel er bedre, men det er ikke bestandig det går.

 

Hva er mest kompromissløst, å nekte for all vold, uansett hva det fører til, eller å godta at vold kan være nødvendig noen ganger?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Dine eksempler er veldig hypotetiske. Jeg foretrekker nødhjelp foran krig. Når ble det å drepe 20 stk (er det krig?) redningen for å unngå at 2000 sulter? Har du hørt om en krig som ikke førte til sult, død og lidelser? Kan du nevne en av krigene i det siste som har ført til noe godt? Som var verd det?

Men jeg har som tidligere sagt at vold kan brukes som forsvar mot vold. Men fred må være et hovedmål! 

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

[Anonym bruker]

12 minutter siden, Anonym bruker skrev:

Dine eksempler er veldig hypotetiske. Jeg foretrekker nødhjelp foran krig. Når ble det å drepe 20 stk (er det krig?) redningen for å unngå at 2000 sulter? Har du hørt om en krig som ikke førte til sult, død og lidelser? Kan du nevne en av krigene i det siste som har ført til noe godt? Som var verd det?

Men jeg har som tidligere sagt at vold kan brukes som forsvar mot vold. Men fred må være et hovedmål! 

 

Anonymkode: 879e6...8a2

Det er slik man tenker i forbindelse med FN oppdrag for eksempel.

Ellers har jeg nevnt eksempler som den norske motstanden under krigen. Burde folk heller droppet motstanden og underkastet seg nazistene? Var det galt å bruke vold for å få jødene og andre ut av konsentrasjonsleirene?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

[Anonym bruker]

Akkurat nå, Anonym bruker skrev:

Det er slik man tenker i forbindelse med FN oppdrag for eksempel.

Ellers har jeg nevnt eksempler som den norske motstanden under krigen. Burde folk heller droppet motstanden og underkastet seg nazistene? Var det galt å bruke vold for å få jødene og andre ut av konsentrasjonsleirene?

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0

Hvis fred var hovedmålet måtte man jo godtatt nazismen etter at de hadde tatt makten. Så lenge ingen gjorde opprør og gjorde som de nye lovene sa, var de ikke spessielt voldlige.

Anonymkode: 76b99...fb0